The story of the Iran coup should be part of United States’ history because the episode is hugely important and the Middle East was shaped after the coup when one looks at the perspective of the past. Also, it is essential for people to know the political history of other countries especially the countries that the United States is involved with. In the world of mid-century, Mossadegh was a huge figure in the Middle East. He was great in a time before the voice of the Third World. During his time, he embraced in a national course, for example, the nationalization of the oil industry that produced effects that still people live with today (Abrahamian 183).
Also, people need to understand the cause of the enmity. The enmity between Iran as well as the United States runs deep in the mainstream politics. American leaders running for the presidency seat explain their hatred as well as distrust over Iran. For instance, both Hillary Clinton as well as President Trump have argued that Iran supports terrorism. Moreover, they have promised the citizens of the United States in their respective campaigns that they would strike Iran. Most of the American citizens have a negative opinion of Iran, following their leaders.
Criticizing the government of the United States for its involvement in matters concerning Iran in 1953 is patriotic. The prime minister of Iran, Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry for the benefit of the country. The United States, as well as Britain, acted to suit its interests. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company exclusively controlled the oil reserves although the company later changed to be called British Petroleum. Britain opted for a coup d’état, after considering military action (Gasiorowski and Malcolm 12). Although the idea was rejected by President Harry Truman, the CIA was ordered by President Dwight Eisenhower when he took over the White House to embark on a foreign government.
Individuals are allowed to criticize the country when it has involved itself in matters affecting other countries negatively. The government of Mossadegh was undermined by the CIA as well as the British intelligence through orchestrated riots, bribery, and libel. The religious leaders were threatened by agents posing as communists. Additionally, the ambassador of the United States lied to the prime minister about American nationals’ attack. The coup did not bring any good to the country since, after the crushing of the democratic government, the country was ushered into a dictatorship government.
The CIA relied on information from the British Intelligence and almost caused a third world war. The British Intelligence assumed that the revenue lost from the oil crisis would end the war sooner. Instead, the crisis made them take some risky steps as a result endangering the future of Iran. Earlier the British intelligence, as well as the CIA, had envisioned sending paratroops into Iran bringing the danger of the Soviet Union invading. The overthrow brought a lot of complications, for instance, dictatorship leadership under the Shah. The history of Iran was changed and did not guarantee the west to control the Middle East (Mokhtari 457).
The coup is related to nationalism in the United States and shows that the country takes part in what primarily benefits the country. A cultural gap is evident between the American public as well as the Iranian Public. The 1953 coup shapes the history of Iran. On the other hand, no much information is available for the people of the United States. The media of the United States intentionally did not bring the story of the coup into context. The story was rarely mentioned. On the contrast, when American diplomats were held hostage for 444 days, the issue was covered in the all the main channels on a daily basis.
Alternative Sources of Information
To answer the questions about the past, historians use a wide variety of sources. Many clues are left by individuals who lived in the past. For instance, some of the clues are in the form of unpublished documents. Often, unpublished documents come from political parties as well as community organizations and so on. Because only a few copies exist, unpublished documents may be hard to find. For example, some of the information may be found in letters written to the intended people. Unpublished documents provide exciting clues since they are seldom meant to be read by the public.
To learn about the past, oral tradition can be used. In recent times, spoken work has been used as a primary source. Through spoken stories, historians find out about what occurred in the past. Additionally, crucial historical evidence about people as well as events is provided through oral stories. This implies that in cases where a group or a story that is excluded from publication, oral history can be a significant primary source. In the past, human beings used oral histories to pass information. Information was passed through spoken word before the invention of writing. In the world today, oral traditions are exercised through interviews as well as recordings of historical events’ witnesses to provide information about the past (Mohammed 50).
Historians also use visual documents, for instance, photographs, films, as well as paintings and so on. Visual documents can provide a change in time since they capture moments in time. Besides, they include evidence about an event at a particular time in history. When using visual images, it is essential for historians to analyze the point of view as well as the perspective of the creator. In the case of the 1953 coup of Iran, a historian can get useful information when carrying out interviews in Iran than in the United States because the Iranian people are pretty well informed about the event.
Historical sources are analyzed by historians in different ways. The first thing historians think about is where, when as well as why a document was created. Additionally, they check if the source was established close to the location as well as the time of the actual historical event. The source’s purpose is also a cause of concern to historians. They think if the source was intended to be kept private, for instance, a personal diary, or was meant for the public.
When judging primary sources, some are more reliable than others, even though each source is biased in a way. For that reason, historians are supposed to read sources skeptically as well as critically. Also, they are supposed to cross-check the evidence against other sources. For instance, in the case of the 1953 coup, historians were supposed to cross-check the story from the main American media against that of Iran main media. Also, talk to the people on the ground in Iran. The government of the United States kept the story as a secret for a long time. It was rarely mentioned on the main channels. But, the same story was being mentioned in Iran. Most people in the United States do not know the story. The incident had been forgotten already.
Since every source is biased in a way, historians are supposed to check the time and place the creator was to an event, to judge the quality of the primary source. Better primary sources are created immediately at the time the events occurred and not the ones that have been reviewed for many years before being published. In the case of the 1953 coup of Iran, the United States government cited numerous excuses to publish the documentary of the coup over the years. A better primary source is created by first-hand observers as well as participants. For instance, in 1970, an entire memoir was published by Kermit Roosevelt, who ran Iran’s operation. The history included the involvement of the British government, a thing that they did not want to get to the public. The CIA reviewed the information and released it in much later years.
In most cases, credible sources are created by neutral parties and not people who have interests that have influenced the information. In the case of the CIA releasing information about the coup, the government of the United States was involved in the issue, as a result, might have influenced the information. If some of the information requires protection, the declassifiers of the government excise the particulars despite the fact that the larger part remains intact.
Works Cited
Abrahamian, Ervand. "The 1953 coup in Iran." Science " Society (2001): 182-215.
Gasiorowski, Mark J., and Malcolm Byrne, eds. Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 coup in Iran. Syracuse University Press, 2004.
Mohammed, Kabir. "The Role of History, Historiography and Historian in Nation Building." International journal of humanities and social science invention, 2 (7) (2013): 50-57.
Mokhtari, Fariborz. "Iran's 1953 Coup Revisited: Internal Dynamics versus External Intrigue." The Middle East Journal62.3 (2008): 457-488.
